Worldbuilding in Literature

[Exa Inova]

I think the Goodkind novels would've been better served if he'd just done away with worldbuilding completely.

Worldbuilding should either be done properly or not at all.

Which he never did....but would be a contradiction to what you said....and contradictions dont exist....just as you probably hate the fact that his books exist.....and have chosen death.

End of sermon.

[Arthmail]

So we all live in a fantasy, is that your argument? Because if I take what you said at face value (which I don't), that would seem to be the implication behind your claims.

Did you purposefully miss what i said? These places no longer exist as they once did. The life that was in them is gone, and in order to breath it into them once more, you have to build it back in. The foundation, the historical data, is already there. Now you need the walls, plumbing, wiring, roof, etc. All that which you basically have to construct. You're making it up. World building.

I have no idea why you cling to purist notions of the two words, but thats your choice. That being said, i don't remember ever having agreed with anything you've said, so lets just chalk it down to difference of opinion.

[Larry.]

I'm not exactly a purist on this, but rather a skeptic that doesn't see the need to conflate terms (and now, apparently academic disciplines). And yes, it's likely just a difference of opinion.

[Wastrel]

No, a "skeptic" is one who is doubtful of a claim to knowledge, and in particular ontological knowledge. If we lack ontological knowledge, our ontology will be sparse - because specific knowledge claims, embodied in distinct ontological categories, will be unsupportable. A skeptic does not say "let's assume that X, Y and Z are different", because he has no grounds for believing in X, Y and Z - if he admits the existence of anything there, he admits the existence only of XYZ, an undifferentiate amalgam.

In making categorical distinctions - "this is genre/world-building", "this is Literature/setting", you're being MORE ontologically ornate and LESS 'skeptical' than the guy who says "I don't know if there's a difference between these two".

Compare: which of these two people labelled S is the skeptic:

A: That's Bob!

S1: No it's not, it's Bob's twin brother, Jake!

A: That's Bob's twin brother, Jake!

S2: Is it? How can you tell? How do you know Jake even exists when you've only got Bob's word for it? Maybe we should just say it's "Bob/Jake" until we know more...

Well, in case you didn't know, it's the second "skeptic" who's actually a skeptic. It doesn't reverse if we replace Bob and Jake with 'world-building' and 'setting'...

[i don't see where the 'academic disciplines' enters in to the discussion at all]

[Larry.]

I meant "skeptical" - I'm tired, rather ill still from last week's stomach virus/food poisoning, and the issue of academic disciplines refers to the passing reference to the historical past. So please, just stop the niggling remarks. I've stated my opinion, seen nothing presented that would sway it, not going to attempt to sway others and frankly am more likely to cuss you out than to desire to continue this any further. Got it?

[Wastrel]

Well, OK, you meant 'skeptical', not 'skeptic'. I'll admit I'm unsure how the adjective can have the opposite meaning from the noun, but I'll let that one go - because threatening to swear at me is a convincing enough argument for me! I'm sorry to have doubted you.

However, I'm puzzled by something psychological: if you admit that you can't justify your (sociopolitical) stance rationally, why have you not only told us about it, but repeated yourself loudly time and again? To argue when you have no argument takes a special confidence, I must say! I accept that you don't want to shout at us idiots anymore for failing to believe your truth-to-which-no-path-can-be-shown-to-the-unbeliever, and I'm disappointed*, but I'm also somewhat frustrated, even feeling somewhat... cheated? When a man enters into a discussion loudly, we sort of expect he will not then walk out again swearing at you for interupting his headache. I don't know what the bellicose attitude is for in any case - I didn't harass you, or anything, when you had left the discussion - I simply rebutted your argument, which you were continuing to make only one post ago. That's sort of what arguments are for - to be rebutted. If you don't want your arguments rebutted, why are you offering them?

*For instance, if you were sticking around, I would hope for your imput on another question of fine distinctions: where precisely is the dividing line between "a distinction between two classes of people that is used as the basis for derogatory depictions of the unfavoured class, which is proposed as evident truth but cannot be supported through reason or argument" and "a knee-jerk rhetorical reaction to disenfranchise a disfavoured social group through patronising ridicule"?

----

I do respect your thoughts on many occasions, and particularly your taste in literature, for which reason I've read your blog for more than year now; I'm very thankful for the time you've taken with my comments there during that time. Nonetheless, I can't see why either your good taste, or your previous generosity of conversation, or even your poor health (my sincere regrets and sympathy regarding that, incidentally - I had gastroenteritis a few years ago now, and still remember how horrible it was; I hope you feel better soon) should mean that your objectionable categorisations should be allowed to go unchallenged in a public forum.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Dylan,

There's a big, rather substantive difference, though. You might think of setting as being "passive," Adam, but it is the placing of the action within a place that exists. New York is, for all extent and purposes "real." Middle-Earth is not; it is an imagined construct that cannot be placed in this physical realm. Yes, people can imagine aspects of a real place (New York with fairies, werewolves, etc.), but that does not change the notion that New York exists, that it has geographical coordinates. Minas Tirith does not have that; it was created by an author and no matter how much of a patina of "realism" that might be added to that or any other imagined story "world," it does not and will not ever exist in this physical world. It does not have a proper "setting" in the sense that there is nothing existing outside one's imagination. The physical world in which we reside is, no matter how much we might desire to reimagine it as being something else, exists outside our attempts to manipulate it via language, semantic paralanguage, and the like. It is a place in which real or constructed historia might take place, and writers might need to make sure that there is a harmony of information that correlates with readers' common, shared understandings (based on their own lives and experiences and learned information) of what ought to exist, but that differs in quite a few magnitudes from a writer creating a "world" whole cloth (or as much as one could due to the limitations of semantic understandings of what would constitute a simulacrum of a "real" setting).

So yeah, feel free to use "world building" for imagined worlds; it's just rather odd to claim that it is a better word than "setting", which after all takes place in a "real" location and thus can be placed (or "set") by readers and non-readers alike.

With all due respect isn't this just the snobbery of the literati set where it's okay to have imaginary people but not imaginary places (thank you Shryke)?

[Zap Rowsdower]

I think some degree of world building is essential.

I cannot tell you how frustrating it is when I read stories in which the characters are just falling, falling, falling, falling, falling, falling, falling, falling, falling, falling, falling, falling, falling, falling, falling, falling, falling, falling, falling, falling, falling, falling, falling, falling. If the author had taken one moment to write "and the characters stood on the ground, which was firm and unyielding and highly unlikely to vanish in a puff of smoke, leaving them to thrash about in the illimitable firmament," all of that tedium could have been sidestepped.

[Larry.]

Dylan,

With all due respect isn't this just the snobbery of the literati set where it's okay to have imaginary people but not imaginary places (thank you Shryke)?

I don't see it as "snobbery." I think it's more an attempt to set up discernible differences for purposes of categorization. I'm not sure just how rigid any differences might be (despite some seeming to think that I'm proclaiming some sort of certainty around here ;)) between the terms, but I just am hesitant, like Joe was in his one comment days ago, if a term designed for one type of fiction should be applied to another, so thus my comments presenting possible differences.

But let's turn this around a little bit - why would readers/critics of non-fiction, mimetic fiction, surrealistic fiction, etc. want to use the word "world building" as opposed to "setting"? I wonder if part of the disconnect that I'm sensing might be because there might be different preconceptions of what ought to be core story elements. It might be that someone like myself, who doesn't read that much secondary-world fiction, finds it rather presumptuous that others might try to define other genre elements utilizing the core vocabulary of that other genre; the inverse is doubtless true as well (which is why I have reconsidered over the past couple of years the validity of the term "world building" as it applies to secondary-world creation). I suspect that instead of snobbery in many of such cases, it just might be confoundment and bafflement more than anything else. If the semantics of words differ between groups, disagreements probably will take place, no?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Dylan,

I think Shryke is correct when he calls setting v. World-building a "distiction without a difference." Setting is setting whether the world is ours or one that arrises out of the authors imagination.

What frustrates me, and others I suspect, is the derision that is flung at world-building by those like Mr. Harrison. He called it "nerdism" I believe. It seems to me that writing a good story in an imaginary setting is more difficult that writting on in our own world. It's not as though the author in an imaginary setting can run to an encyclopedia to confirm his discriptions of parts of the world he is creating. Yet, if that world fails to be internally consistent the reader will notice. It will draw the reader out of the story.

Setting, unless you are attempting to create a surreal world, needs to be consistent wether the setting is downtown Chicago or Minas Tirith. I would concede that in a work of "surreal fiction" setting/world-building would be less important as the author is attempting to create a world that is deliberately not internally consistent. Heck, in surrealism I'd go so far as to call such stories anti-world building.

[Wastrel]

I refer you to the post you ignored last time:

"DF is being disingenuous in his focus upon terminology. So the phrase 'world-building' was invented more recently than 'setting'? Fine - I don't really see why that means the former shouldn't replace the latter, but let's grant that it shouldn't. There still remains the fact that this is a confusion of "X is Y" with "X should be called Y". I can say quite easily that a certain animal is an avian without denying that it is a bird, and without saying that the term avian should replace the term "bird"; nobody cares whether you call it "setting" or "world-building", only that you don't falsely demarcate, for essentially political/social reasons, between the two."

Nobody here other than you is talking about terminology. And we can quite easily look back at your posts on this thread and notice that YOU weren't talking about terminology either! Discussions about how 'real' New York is, or about the authorial intent of Rushdie vs the intent of Wolfe/Tolkien/etc are clearly not discussions over whether we should call a thing "world-building" or "setting".

Moreover, terminology alone does not justify the nerdism argument. Saying that two things should be named differently is NOT the same as showing that they are in fact different (the same thing can be named differently in different places, for instance - it is appropriate to say "London" here and "Londres" there, but that does not mean that London and Londres are different places) - and to justify the "world-building bad, setting good" mentality you need to show that they are actually distinct.

However, on the terminological (and trivial) point: why shouldn't people from one background use their terminology to describe things from another? Do you also object to French people having their own words for world-building? Or to biologists and layman having different words for the same thing? I mean, this is how things work in every field OTHER than literature. I already gave an example from logic/philosophy/linguistics: people from different "home" fields will describe the same concept with "denotation", "extension", "reference", "Bedeutung" and no doubt other words as well. Of course, some care must be taken to be clear when you use terms from one field to talk to people from another - but with your noble exception, we here are all in the same room, so it's foolish to demand that we obey the speech rules of people in a different room.

In fact, what this seemingly innocuous point amounts to is a totalising attitude to literary perspective - you promulgate the chosen language (and hence to some degree perspective) of a particular favoured elite, while deprecating attempts to discuss the same subject matter from new perspectives and in new vocabularies. Of course, sometimes the elite are right - but that should have to be shown through dialogue and openness, not through fiat and restriction, as you do here. If you're confident in the ability of Literature to stand up to alternatives, you should allow the two to be stood side-by-side and talked about openly with the same vocabulary.

Instead, you are channelling the inevitable reaction of a threatened elite: to exclude, ignore and ridicule the problematic. This is particularly ridiculous when, as here, no clear dividing lines can actually be drawn between the two groups (the establishment comes pre-problematised, and its defensive behaviour is schizophrenic and self-alienating).

-----

Incidentally, do you have no qualms about your strategy in making your point? I mean, I can understand retreating from an argument due to business, ill-health, or simply boredom (however annoying it inevitably is for one's interlocutors)... but using that only as an excuse to ignore certain posts, while still hanging around to pretend to respond to others by disingenuously repeating questions you know have already been addressed? Do you not feel as though you've put your fingers in your ears to avoid hearing the dissent, while still standing in street shouting out your own views?

Dialogue should be, as the name implies, a two-way thing. If you won't listen to us, you shouldn't talk to us either. It's one thing to begin to talk and then to realise that you don't have time to listen - but once you've realised that, the only honourable and decent path is to stop talking (or start listening).

[And no, threatening to swear is not a meaningful response]

[Wastrel]

Dylan,

I think Shryke is correct when he calls setting v. World-building a "distiction without a difference." Setting is setting whether the world is ours or one that arrises out of the authors imagination.

What frustrates me, and others I suspect, is the derision that is flung at world-building by those like Mr. Harrison. He called it "nerdism" I believe. It seems to me that writing a good story in an imaginary setting is more difficult that writting on in our own world. It's not as though the author in an imaginary setting can run to an encyclopedia to confirm his discriptions of parts of the world he is creating. Yet, if that world fails to be internally consistent the reader will notice. It will draw the reader out of the story.

Setting, unless you are attempting to create a surreal world, needs to be consistent wether the setting is downtown Chicago or Minas Tirith. I would concede that in a work of "surreal fiction" setting/world-building would be less important as the author is attempting to create a world that is deliberately not internally consistent. Heck, in surrealism I'd go so far as to call such stories anti-world building.

But in good surrealism, a lot of world-building is required - it may not be consistent, but that's not important. Change is just as much a part of the world as consistency, and the pattern of change and fixity in surrealism is not simply random. Surrealism operates to undermine concepts of fixity, yes, but a degree of fixity must first be established in order to be undermined, and a degree of fixity continues to operate over the pattern of change. Very few artworks are purely chaotic, with no setting at all (remember, settings may vary over time as well as over place).

But I guess that suggestion is somewhat tangential to the discussion.

[Zach H]

But let's turn this around a little bit - why would readers/critics of non-fiction, mimetic fiction, surrealistic fiction, etc. want to use the word "world building" as opposed to "setting"?

Well, based on my definition to worldbuild is to create a setting that has an increased sense of depth and vividness that is just as essential to the story as theme or character. Or perhaps a better way to put it is that, if done right, a story's world should be an essential aspect to building theme and character.

I like what Gene Wolfe said about worldbuilding at this SF Signal Mind Meld:

Atmosphere, hands down. The feel of the world, the emotional response it gets from them. The way it smells, sounds, and looks. The kinds of things that happen there.

As for why "non-genre" lit. writers might want to adopt the term, I see "worldbuilder" as fulfilling a similar role as "stylist" does in the book lingo. Both connote a writer's generally acknowledged strength or style without being too rigid in what they stand for.

[Larry.]

Zach,

Your answer makes some sense, but it depends upon writers who want the setting to stand out in comparison to the themes, characterizations, and plots. Quite a few writers don't desire this at all. In addition, for many types of writing, fiction and non-fiction alike, there likely is no perceived need to "build" a "world," as it already exists. So while I could see such a term being necessary for certain types of writing situations, I just don't think it'd be a good descriptor for writers of other narrative modes.

[Zach H]

Well, my point was that good worldbuilding should intertwine in a seamless manner as possible with characterization and theme, so I don't think it's a requirement for a writer to actively want to stress setting over theme or characterization to be recognized as a notable worldbuilder. Similarly, I think a talented "stylist" uses their pretty prose towards the benefit of many aspects of the fiction that go beyond the creation of a line by line level poetic flourish. It is through that flourish that theme can be revealed, just as it's also possible for a fictional backdrop to build a stronger standard of characterization. And, of course, it's entirely possible to be a worldbuilder and a stylist at once. As I said before, these terms aren't rigid, and if they're viewed as such that's when I think the conversation tends to drift away from the actual fiction and towards boring genre vs. literary posturing.

As for stories where there's no need to "build a world," I'm not sure I agree with the notion, but again that's due to my definition of worldbuilding. Jonathan Lethem didn't invent Brooklyn as a setting in order to write The Fortress of Solitude, but at the same time I believe he built a version of Brooklyn that one can only experience by reading that particular novel.

[Juba]

Wastrel--thanks for answering my question earlier, I appreciate it.

Seeing as how I agree for the most part with your take on worldbuilding/setting, I was actually hoping someone in the other camp would have responded to my query or the similar questions asked by others.

Incidentally, do you have no qualms about your strategy in making your point? I mean, I can understand retreating from an argument due to business, ill-health, or simply boredom (however annoying it inevitably is for one's interlocutors)... but using that only as an excuse to ignore certain posts, while still hanging around to pretend to respond to others by disingenuously repeating questions you know have already been addressed? Do you not feel as though you've put your fingers in your ears to avoid hearing the dissent, while still standing in street shouting out your own views?

Dialogue should be, as the name implies, a two-way thing. If you won't listen to us, you shouldn't talk to us either. It's one thing to begin to talk and then to realise that you don't have time to listen - but once you've realised that, the only honourable and decent path is to stop talking (or start listening).

[And no, threatening to swear is not a meaningful response]

I must say, I agree.

[fionwe1987]

You still haven't answered my question. Given that worldbuilding and setting are separate terms, why is it that worldbuilding is, de facto, a sign of nerdism? Why do you believe that good worldbuilding is not a part of good writing?

[Werthead]

Your answer makes some sense, but it depends upon writers who want the setting to stand out in comparison to the themes, characterizations, and plots. Quite a few writers don't desire this at all. In addition, for many types of writing, fiction and non-fiction alike, there likely is no perceived need to "build" a "world," as it already exists. So while I could see such a term being necessary for certain types of writing situations, I just don't think it'd be a good descriptor for writers of other narrative modes.

This is true, but it also doesn't really address the genre/non-genre point. Some noir writers writing in the real world make the city (New York or LA or whatever) into a character into its own right, with descriptions and editors to spare, whilst other writers don't really bother with the backdrop. Some fantasy authors spend a lot of time making the setting stand out and be memorable (Tolkien, certainly Peake where Gormenghast Castle certainly has far more prose lavished on it and its atmosphere than any of the characters) whilst others use it as a 2D backdrop of no consequence. I don't see a distinction between the two extremes based on genre.

Also, good worldbuilding arguably calls for the setting not to stand out more than the themes, characterizations and plots, but serve as the perfect backdrop for them. The best worldbuilding does not call undue attention to itself, whilst clunky worldbuilding where the writer goes on for 20 pages about a minor and unimportant detail just to show off his crib notes is indeed risking becoming 'the clomping foot of nerdism'.

The perfect example is Mieville, whose worldbuilding skills leave many of the more traditional epic fantasy secondary world writers in the dust, but who never does worldbuilding at the expense of character, theme or story.

[Larry.]

You still haven't answered my question. Given that worldbuilding and setting are separate terms, why is it that worldbuilding is, de facto, a sign of nerdism? Why do you believe that good worldbuilding is not a part of good writing?

How can I answer that, when I didn't say (or think) those things?

This is true, but it also doesn't really address the genre/non-genre point. Some noir writers writing in the real world make the city (New York or LA or whatever) into a character into its own right, with descriptions and editors to spare, whilst other writers don't really bother with the backdrop. Some fantasy authors spend a lot of time making the setting stand out and be memorable (Tolkien, certainly Peake where Gormenghast Castle certainly has far more prose lavished on it and its atmosphere than any of the characters) whilst others use it as a 2D backdrop of no consequence. I don't see a distinction between the two extremes based on genre.

Also, good worldbuilding arguably calls for the setting not to stand out more than the themes, characterizations and plots, but serve as the perfect backdrop for them. The best worldbuilding does not call undue attention to itself, whilst clunky worldbuilding where the writer goes on for 20 pages about a minor and unimportant detail just to show off his crib notes is indeed risking becoming 'the clomping foot of nerdism'.

The perfect example is Mieville, whose worldbuilding skills leave many of the more traditional epic fantasy secondary world writers in the dust, but who never does worldbuilding at the expense of character, theme or story.

The only distinction I'm making is that of degree, not of quality (regardless of what some have argued here, I'm not going to argue matters of taste/quality outside of presenting my opinion). The way I see the setting/WB issue is this: if the two are the same, then why change the terminology (leave it at setting then, since that suffices and is the older, more widely-used term outside of certain circles)? If the terms describe differences of degree or intent, then why conflate them?

[fionwe1987]

How can I answer that, when I didn't say (or think) those things?

Well, you said you're sympathetic to the viewpoint of the OP's friend. And what we were told is:

He saw worldbuilding as completely pointless, and claims to be naturally averse to any writer known for using it.

When you came out in support of this, exactly what did you want us to infer?